≡ Menu

Maariv Reports Cabinet Favors Iran Attack, U.S. Delivers Iran ‘Final’ Ultimatum

Just when you thought it was safe to come out from your air raid shelter after Bibi returned from his U.S. foray to stoke up war fever, Maariv raises the temperature to a boiling point.  Ben Caspit reports (Hebrew) that the cabinet now has, for the first time, a majority (eight votes for, six votes against) favoring the measure.  This means that theoretically Bibi can begin an attack at any time.  Of course, it could mean something different: it could mean the cabinet has approved a strike at any point in future with Bibi determining the timing.  So it doesn’t necessarily mean the F-16s will fly tonight or tomorrow.  But it could:

Cabinet Majority Supports Iran Attack

The prime minister yesterday delivered one of the most combative and explicit speeches in the history of the Iran affair.  Several cabinet ministers said in private conversations that it sounded like a “speech preparing for war.”

Political sources judge that the prime minister has a majority in the cabinet which favors a military strike against Iran, even without American approval.  Yesterday, Netanyahu said he wouldn’t hesitate to attack Iran even without the approval of Pres. Obama…A senior official said Bibi believed it would be best not to wait for the November presidential elections because he didn’t trust the president to deal with the problem after the election.

hamas israel ceasefire

(artist: Steve Greenberg)

Bibi’s speech sounds like it was a real stem-winder.  Among new crackpot theories he’s developing: the Gaza fighting wasn’t Israel’s fault (even though the IDF initiated it by assassinating a Popular Resistance Committee leader who was allegedly planning a terror attack).  No, the whole Gaza mess was Iran’s fault.  Yup.  You didn’t think Iran earned the sobriquet “the evil empire” for nothing did you?  Oh, wait, that was the Soviet Union in the Reagan era now, wasn’t it?  Plus ca change

Iran not only supplies missiles to Gaza it plans to offer Palestinian “terrorists” a nuclear bomb it doesn’t even have:

“The dominant force behind the events in Gaza is not the Palestinians, but Iran,” Netanyahu said. “The terror groups there stand under an Iranian umbrella. Imagine to yourselves what will happen when that umbrella is armed with nuclear bombs.”

There has been a great deal of nuclear proliferation caused by spying, leaks and pay-for-play nuclear scientists.  But none of it involved Iran.  Pakistan and North Korea have been the main culprits along with some former Soviet nuclear scientists.  But no Iranians.  Ever.

Here’s more of the speech:

Sooner or later Iran’s terror base in Gaza will be uprooted.  Iran is what is happening inside Gaza.  Where does the funding come from?  Iran.  Who equips the terrorists?  Iran.  Who builds the [terror] infrastructure?  Iran.  Gaza is Iran’s frontline.

So much for Bibi’s lies.  It makes you wonder how he can say this crap with a straight face.  The Palestinians, who live there, aren’t even to blame for events in Gaza.  It’s those puppeteers 1,000 miles away in Teheran who pull all the strings.  The locals are just marionettes.

Despite the fact that Israel broke a ceasefire it had signed and killed the PRC chief, Iran is to blame because it gives missiles to Islamic Jihad.  You followed that, didn’t you?  That’s Islamic Jihad, which didn’t begin the hostilities, but only fired missiles after Israel broke the ceasefire.  But still Iran is to blame.  Now that we’ve got that settled…

The Russian newspaper Kommersant wrote (Russian) that Hillary Clinton told her Russian counterpart that he should tell the Iranians that the upcoming April nuclear negotiations would be the “last chance” to resolve the issue diplomatically.  If the article is to be believed, this was basically a threat to the Iranians that if they didn’t deal, failure of the talks would be followed by war:

Russian diplomats at the United Nations believed it was a “matter of when, not if” Israel would strike against Iran.

What this has become is a game of chicken.  Bibi and Barack go eyeball to eyeball with Khamenei and wait till one of ‘em blinks.  As I’ve written before, I’m putting my money on Iran.  I think Obama is an empty suit.  But even if he does go to war, he can’t fully quell Iran’s resistance.  Further, Obama will not be willing to do an Afghanistan or Iraq and invade Iran.  He doesn’t have the will or support among the American people for such an adventure.  The Iranians, though they might fold out of a sense of imminent threat, would seem to end up being stronger if they don’t.  If Israel attacks alone, the Iranians are in even better shape since the Israelis can do less damage than the Americans.  If the Israelis and Americans attack together, they still can’t complete the job.  They can neither bring regime change nor subjugate the Iranian will.  At most they “mow the lawn” to quote another one of those disgusting IDF slogans that substitute for real military strategy.  That means, Iran will eventually return to the agenda in a year or three.  When it does it will be stronger, more seasoned, more bitter, more implacable.  And we will have only ourselves to blame.

Bufferfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail
youtubeyoutube

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • Eliyahu March 15, 2012, 2:59 AM

    Oh look, a basic failure in reading comprehension. How surprising.

    Iran not only supplies missiles to Gaza it plans to offer Palestinian “terrorists” a nuclear bomb it doesn’t even have:

    “The dominant force behind the events in Gaza is not the Palestinians, but Iran,” Netanyahu said. “The terror groups there stand under an Iranian umbrella. Imagine to yourselves what will happen when that umbrella is armed with nuclear bombs.”

    • Richard Silverstein March 15, 2012, 1:04 PM

      You mean you disagree that Bibi was predicting Iran would offer nukes to Palestinian “terror groups?” If so, how can you do so when he’s said precisely that & not once but many times?

  • Nimrod March 15, 2012, 3:25 AM

    In the last section of this post, you say that if Israel attacks now, Iran will eventually return to the agenda in a year or three, only stronger.

    Alot can happen in 3 years.
    From the Israeli point of view, delaying Iranian nukes is not perfect but still much better than doing nuthing but waiting for the Iranian first televised nuklear test.

    • lifelong March 15, 2012, 4:51 AM

      First televised nuclear test… You do realise they actually need a nuclear bomb program first?

  • Fred Plester March 15, 2012, 4:03 AM

    Bearing in mind some of the seismic activity seen after Pakistani nuclear tests, and thinking of Tehran’s vulnerability to earthquakes in particular, I expect the Iranians to “prove” their nuclear designs by some method other than stuffing them down deep holes in the ground and setting them off.

  • Bob Mann March 15, 2012, 4:59 AM

    Why is it that you use quotation marks around the word terrorist when referencing Islamic Jihad but have no compunction about calling MEK a terrorist group without any such qualifications?

    Are they not both equally deserving of the label in your opinion?

    • Richard Silverstein March 15, 2012, 12:52 PM

      When Israel murders someone without trial saying they were planning a terror attack I put quotes around the term because it can arrest and try them & chooses not to. Instead it murders them in cold blood. I’m fully prepared to concede IJ or other militants are terrorists if there is an attempt to prove this in a court of law. In fact, I have written here that I would welcome international courts trying both Israeli and Palestinians for violations of international law. I am sure there are Palestinians that could be successfully prosecuted, just as I’m sure many more Israelis could be as well. I have this admitted weakness that I prefer proven evidence & guilt if possible before labelling someone.

      As for MEK, they are terrorists because unlike IJ, which is launching rockets which are largely ineffective and cause little damage, the Iranian dissident group is a mind-control cult which actually bombs & murders enemies under contract and has done so for decades. It has also killed far more than IJ ever did. It also seeks to overthrow its own government, one recognized by the world as a legally constituted government by most of the world. That’s considerably more dangerous than anything IJ can pull off. Also, I know many Iranians who are personally directly familiar with MEK who confirm my judgment of the group as terrorist.

      • Bob Mann March 15, 2012, 7:57 PM

        You write the Islamic Jihad “is launching rockets which are largely ineffective and cause little damage” but they are also responsible for numerous suicide attacks and murders of civilians over the past two decades.

        I’m not sure how you can say that you are lacking “proven evidence & guilt” of Islamic Jihad being a terrorist organization when they have, in fact, claimed responsibility for so many attacks against civilians.

        As for MEK seeking to overthrow the Iranian government – were you not supportive of the groups who successfully overthrew Mubarak’s government in Egypt or Qaddafi’s in Libya? Both governments were as widely recognized as Iran’s. Is it bad that there are Syrians who are trying to overthrow Assad’s government? I’m not sure I understand your POV here.

        I’m more shocked, though, that you would hesitate to call Islamic Jihad a terrorist organization in spite of them being on record as organizing and carrying out terrorist attacks against civilians over the last 20 years.

        • Richard Silverstein March 15, 2012, 9:03 PM

          I didn’t say anything about what IJ has done over the past 2 decades nor is that very relevant to today. I did say that if in the past Palestinian militants did kill civilians they should be held accountable along with Israeli leaders & generals. Today, IJ is lobbing ineffective rockets at Israel while MEK is killing & bombing Iranian missile bases & their personnel quite effectively with Mossad’s help.

          MEK doesn’t want to engage in non violent resistance to overthrow the Iranian government. They’ve assasinated Iran’s top leaders in the past & would do it again if given half a chance. THe Arab Spring is not a movement based on terror & assassination. It is a popular non violent movement: everything MEK is not. It is neither popular, nor democratic nor non violent.

          I don’t base calling a Palestinian a terrorist on Israel’s claims that they are. If Israeli claims were to be believed most Palestinians would be terrorists. But if IJ are terrorists then the IDF are terrorists as well. I’ll make a deal with you, if you’ll agree that targeted killing is terrorism especially when it kills civilians as it often does, then I’ll call IJ terrorists. Deal?

          • Aonee March 18, 2012, 6:56 PM

            Just because you choose not to call IJ as terrorist group will not change anything.

      • David Montefiore March 20, 2012, 1:21 PM

        When you start a literary column under an austere nom de plum Hebraiqe, of course you ask us to immediately accept your indictment which are your first words of your blog: “When Israel murders someone..”

        From there it’s all down hill, for you’ve tossed into the mental heap – a monkey trial that you and our enemies sanction. These so-called judges, from the U N and left-wing Israeli society, would be ‘just’ the types the world would need to set the record straight. Right? Wrong! What Silverstein and his ilk would have you believe is that Israel has no enemies – only the ones we have created in order to foster a never-ending stale mate with the Palestinians. They would have you believe that Bibi is his usual ingenuous blustering self appointed P M of the right [with no right to tell you the way it is] But the first thing you have to question is those that call themselves Palestinian. To appreciate the term you must first become a citizen of Rome circa 20 B. C. E. – Jews and Rome call the Holy Land: Judea. For those for whom title was never intended nor given – they call it: The Holy Land, Terra Sancta, The Promised land and – oh yes, Palestine! Palestine for Palestinians.

        David Montefiore

        For the believers that rose like a Phoenix from the ashes it’s just plain old “Eretz Yisrael” the Land of Israel. Zion! Tzion! They’ll settle for just plain old ‘Yerushalayim.’ Ir HaKodesh – The Holy City. The Land of my Fathers and [Mothers] a theme from Exodus – “This land is mine – God gave this land to me…” Detractors would have us believe that even if we tare God from the Torah, Talmud and Scripture that somehow the narrative of western civilization as written about by some dummies in the Qumran Caves is a bunch of contrived malarkey; only to be told on St. Patrick’s day amongst the drunken Irish in County O’Shea.

        The collective left have invariably made the final solution approachable – with the darning of lies into the fabric of other lies thereby making Goebbels words prophetically true. “Tell the lie often enough and they will believe it as the truth.” But fortunately, the love of “Eretz Yisrael” is eternal and love is stronger than death – stronger than the death of a People and stronger that the death of a Nation.

  • Denis March 15, 2012, 6:01 AM

    We know with virtually 100% certainty that Israel is not capable of pulling off an attack on Iran on a scale that would have any worthwhile effect.

    How do we know that? Because they haven’t done it. David Albright made that observation in an interview w/ Amanpour in Nov.2011, and he was dead right.

    We have sufficient past experience to know that any perceived nuke threat to Israel is disposed of immediately, without warning, and certainly without endless, rabid ranting and rhetorical posturing like we’ve seen for 18 months.

    If Bibi’s strategy is to get public opinion on his side so he can get the US or NATO help he needs to take on Iran, he has miscalculated, in part because of a plethora of blogs like this one, Mondoweiss, Common Dreams, Antiwar, etc, etc. I’m beginning to think of these sites as Iran’s Iron Dome.

    • Denis March 15, 2012, 6:20 AM

      Israel’s persistent drum-beating is meant to divert attention away from the rape of Palestine.

      Take for instance, Israel’s destruction of solar panels in the WB on the grounds that they have no permits. These communities are not connected to the grid. These panels are the only way a number of WB communities, like Imneizil, survive. No permits, my tush.

      According to the Guardian, in sector C only 91 permits were issued to Palestinians from 2001-2007. In the same period more than 10,000 Israeli units were built and 1,663 Palestinian structures demolished.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/mar/14/palestinians-prepare-to-lose-solar-panels?INTCMP=SRCH

      The Zionists will do whatever it takes to force these people off the land. This is Jewish Manifest Destiny talkin’. This is the Little Big Horn all over. This is American-style genocide. Put the indigenous people on reservations and forget them.

      • Nimrod March 15, 2012, 7:40 AM

        how is the Iranian nuclear program connected to the Arabs / Palestinians?

        • lifelong March 15, 2012, 8:09 AM

          How is the Iranian nuclear program connected to Israel??

        • Denis March 15, 2012, 9:14 AM

          The MSM total focus on threats, denial of threats, talking-head generals’ assessments of likelihood of strikes or likelihood of success if strikes occur, AIPAC I”ve-got-your-back-speeches, on, and on, and on . . .

          It sucks the oxygen right out of any MSM attempts to focus on Israel’s ongoing rape of Palestine. Propaganda diversion.

          The question is whether Obama is a part of this Israeli cluster-fck of the Palestinians or being suckered into the diversion.

        • Richard Silverstein March 15, 2012, 12:43 PM

          You might want to ask Bibi that. He’s claiming it is.

          • Oded Rozen March 15, 2012, 1:44 PM

            The american president said in front of 13K people the Iran threatened to extinct Israel. Combined with IAEA report the the Iranians are likely to have a military nuclear program
            http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/iaea-voices-serious-concerns-about-possible-military-dimensions-to-iran-nuclear-program-1.416620
            …I guess this is how the Iranian nuclear program correlates to Israel.

          • Richard Silverstein March 15, 2012, 6:24 PM

            The American president was wrong when he said that because Iran has never said that & you are the 20th commenter who has made the same bogus claim which has been refuted here as well with real historical quotes. You don’t get to rewrite history or the truth.

            Also, you are wrong about the IAEA report, which only said that Iran MAY be engaged in nuclear research activities which MAY have military uses. That was two “mays” with no definitive statements whatsoever to support them.

          • Oded Rozen March 15, 2012, 7:26 PM

            What type of information do you think the US president based his statement on ?

            1. Translation provided by Memri ?
            2. Translation provided by Israeli secret services ?
            3. Translation Provided by the NSA/CSS

            I believe the right option is option number 3. The notion that only You and few others readers of your blog know what’s right, and everyone else in the world including the US NSA/CSS and US president are wrong is a bit arrogant in my honest opinion.

          • Richard Silverstein March 15, 2012, 7:37 PM

            Are you implying that the U.S. president only speaks true statements 100% of the time?? Or that Bibi’s only speaks truth? Because that would indeed be rich & I have a few bridges I’d love to sell you. Obama spoke falsely. Whether he knew what he said was false or whether he just spoke what his advisors told him to say I don’t know.

            But as I said the subject is closed & off topic anyway since I didn’t bring it up in my post (you did in your comment).

          • Richard Silverstein March 15, 2012, 7:42 PM

            Actually, every Farsi speaker in the world knows the truth. Plus every researcher like me who’s gotten the original speeches translated by Farsi speakers. I’ve written on this quoting Prof Muhammad Sahaimi’s translation. Others have written exposes on this as well. If you wish to remain ignorant & quote falsehoods be my guest. Just don’t do it here.

          • Oded Rozen March 15, 2012, 8:19 PM

            1. I do not quite understand the off topic issue, i thought that what the US president said was relevant to the question presented, if it wasn’t i apologize.

            2. Your notion that the american president make’s mistakes is True. Let’s assume he had an ill adviser who advised him wrong. Based on that notion can we assume the other advice’s he received were wrong ? can we assume that some of them had to do with Iran ? IMHO either we trust what he says and then Israel Shouldn’t attack Iran, or we Shouldn’t trust what he says and then Israel should do what’s in it’s best interest. You just implied he was wrong. I do not think so.

            3. IAEA is a diplomatic organization and is bound by the rules of diplomacy, in that light one should examine their statements. Combined with the Iranian refusal to allow inspection of their site in Parchin, It is likely ( in my opinion of course) that they have a military nuclear program.

          • Richard Silverstein March 15, 2012, 9:53 PM

            Presidents are human beings. Some of what they say & believe is correct. Some not. I don’t believe every single thing a president says simply because I know one thing he said is correct. I examine everything he tells me & test it against what I know to be true. In some areas, I agree with Obama (very few these days). In some areas I disagree. Some statements he makes are true. Some are false. I don’t have a unified field theory about politicians as you seem to have.

            Saying it is “likely” Iran has a nuclear military program is not strong enough evidence to justify a regional war, which is what we will get after an Israeli attack. And btw, IAEA did not say even that much. It only said there were elements of some programs that Iran appeared to be engaged in which MIGHT have nuclear weapons related purposes. That’s not a lot to hang your coat on.

            This is the post I wrote about the alleged “wiping Israel off the map” quote. You should read it.

          • Oded Rozen March 15, 2012, 8:21 PM

            I appreciate the fact that despite your earlier statement, i wasn’t moderated.
            Thank You.

          • Oded Rozen March 16, 2012, 11:13 AM

            Richard i read your post titled ‘WE’LL WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP’ AND OTHER THINGS AHMADINEJAD NEVER SAID”
            thank you for the link.

            I find the post very interesting, but in my opinion Prof. Muhammad Sahimi ignores one thing, His conclusion is based mostly on the fact that Iranian president and other were referring to the Zionist Regime and not the Israeli state. If you’ll examine Arab and Persians deceleration’s (going back to 1948) they always refer to Israel as the Zionist state / Zionist Regime, The main reason behind it is that they do not acknowledge the right of the state of Israel to exist.

            With respect to what the Iranians are developing. Iran is imposed heavy sanctions by the west which have heavy impact on their economy & society. A country interested in enriched Uranium for medical research purposes will not go through all that, it will simply buy enriched Uranium.

            Again thank you for the link, it was interesting though we do not share the same conclusion.

          • Richard Silverstein March 17, 2012, 12:40 AM

            Sahimi’s argument is not based “mostly” on Iranian use of the term “Zionist regime.”. His argument is based on the fact that the leaders have not said in any shape or form that Iran will destroy Israel, wipe it off the map, whatever.

      • Joel March 15, 2012, 9:28 AM

        Rape of Palestine?

        Aren’t we projecting a bit here Denis?

        And when has it happened that a rape victim and assailant sat down on numerous occasions and attempted to negotiate a settlement of their differences?

        No answer, Denis?

        • Richard Silverstein March 16, 2012, 2:39 AM

          Rape victims engage with their rapists quite often. Rape is not always a black & white crime or incident. Sometimes it takes women some time to process what’s happened to them before they understand it fully. I’ve written here about a number of Israeli women who were raped & did this. It’s not at all as unusual as you make it sound. Palestinians in some ways are similarly traumatized though most of them know what’s been done to them.

  • Oded Rozen March 15, 2012, 10:13 AM

    [Comment deleted: When I tell commenters that a particular subject is closed to further commenting in a particular thread it applies to you. When you ignore this warning your comment privileges are modified until you can prove you understand rules or editorial direction. You are now moderated. The goal of justifying Israel’s violation of the ceasefire & murder of 26 Palestinians by proving Palestinians violated it first is now officially closed and has been since yesterday.]

    • Oded Rozen March 15, 2012, 1:21 PM

      Richard, i read your comment rules before commenting, and didn’t see that when you tell other commenters on a different thread that “They are done on a subject” It applies to me as well, There was no way for me to guess that this subject is closed for commenting, as you didn’t read the entire thread, i read my comments and your comments in reply to mine and that was it.
      as omnipotent as i am, i am not a mind reader, and your action of moderating me is a bit strange, considering the fact that i have seen you warning your commenters prior to taking any actions against them.

      I am feeling very unwelcome here. If this is the kind of courtesy you extend to those who do not agree with you, I will not be here.

      Good luck.

      • Richard Silverstein March 15, 2012, 9:45 PM

        I don’t read comments in individual threads so it’s hard for me to keep track of which thread I’m in. But there were a number of comments all trying to list Israeli dead from Palestinian attacks. I didn’t pay attention, as I said, to which thread each comment was in & assumed they were in the same thread. Try to understand the cumulative effect reading virtually the same comment from 4 diff. commenters. It makes the eyes glaze over.

  • Wabbit March 15, 2012, 6:53 PM

    I don’t think Nethanyahu is serious. When Israel makes a radical move, it makes it without going to the media first. This is what Olmert did when he bombed Syria and Begin did when he bombed Iraq. The pathetic media festival that Nethanyahu has been running is a way to pressure the U.S. and Europe. It’s goal is diplomatic, not military.

    But then, when it comes to Nethanyahu, the guy is so stupid and unpredictable that you can never know.

    • They are proud of it March 15, 2012, 9:09 PM

      Wabbit: “The pathetic media festival that Nethanyahu has been running is a way to pressure the U.S. and Europe.”

      Heck, the Israelis are even boasting about it:
      http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-threats-of-attack-sparked-new-wave-of-iran-sanctions-officials-say-1.418970

      Here is the money-shot: “These aren’t sanctions against Iran. Instead, they are sanctions imposed by the West to curb Israel’s attack plans,”

      That dimwit is actually boasting about Israel’s oh-so-casual violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which unambiguously prohibits using such threats as a form of “diplomacy”.

  • Mohammad Alireza March 16, 2012, 8:23 AM

    Hi Richard,

    Just came across your site and linked the above article to my blog post on Iranian.com

    Check it out if have the time.

    http://www.iranian.com/main/blog/mohammad-alireza/iran-news-condensed-and-highlighted-011

    Peace,

    M. Alireza
    Tehran